Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One Bad Apple

hackerfactor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 557 posts

Re: One Bad Apple

#331

Post by lazide »

zepto wrote: post #330
lazide wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people take and store images of huge numbers of different things? Like the things mentioned upthread, memes, documents? along with screenshots of a huge number of other things. And the details around matching (and groups, etc) are trivial to change in a later update.

> or other files will be scanned since now Ok, so not other files at all then. Just photos of documents. > And the details around matching (and groups, etc) are trivial to change in a later update. Ok, so this mechanism can’t do more than us claimed, but they could add a new mechanism later?

As I said, incredibly naive.

Re: One Bad Apple

#332

Post by zepto »

Maakuth wrote: post #319
zepto wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s not valid to claim that it will be quickly used for that purpose. However I absolutely agree that it could be used to detect non-CSAM images if Apple colludes with that use case. My point is that this is immaterial to what is going on in China. China is already an authoritarian surveillance state. Even without this, the state has access to the iCloud photo servers in China, so who knows what they are doi…

You can label it collusion, but when Apple does it, it's going to call it _complying with local regulation_.

It doesn’t matter what you label it. Hand wringing over making things worse in China is not a valid concern.

Re: One Bad Apple

#333

Post by ChrisKnott »

2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote: post #219
hackerfactor1 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm surprised, and honestly disappointed, that the author seems to still play nice, instead of releasing the whitepaper. I'm the author. I've worked with different parts of NCMEC for years. (I built the initial FotoForensics service in a few days. Before I wrote the first line of code, I was in phone calls with NCMEC about my reporting requirements.) Over time, this relationship grew. Some years, I was in face-to-f…

> someone usually mocks "it's always about the kids, think about the kids." To those critics: They have not seen the scope of this problem or the long term impact. What you are saying here kind of sidetracks the actual problem those critics have though, doesn't it? The problem is not the acknowledgement of how bad child abuse is. The problem is whether we can trust the people who claim that everything they do, they d…

What are the main instances where these claims were made fraudulently?

Re: One Bad Apple

#335

Post by abecedarius »

slg wrote: post #323
abecedarius wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't every Neuralink come with a mandated FBI module preinstalled? Where, if anywhere , is private life to remain, where citizens think and communicate freely? Is Xinjiang just the start for the whole world?

Do you see how this underlines my original point? I brought up real child abuse that is happening today and your response is about brain implants being mandated by the government. Most people are going prioritize the tangible problem over worrying about your sci-fi dystopia.

A plausible story of how our rights are in the way is always ready to hand. If we can't at some point draw a clear line and say no, that's it, stop -- then we have no rights. It's chisel, chisel, chisel, year after year, decade after decade.

In America one of those lines is that your personal papers are private. Get a warrant. I don't have to justify this stand. I might choose to explain why it's a good stand, or I might not; it's on you to persuade us.

Re: One Bad Apple

#337

Post by matheusmoreira »

hackerfactor1 wrote: post #115
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #7

NCMEC has essentially shows that they have zero regard for privacy and called all privacy activists "screeching voices of the minority". At the same time, they're at the center point of a highly opaque, entrenched (often legally mandated) censorhip infrastructure that can and will get accounts shut down irrecoverably and possibly people's homes raided, on questionable data: In one of the previous discussions, I've se…

> I'm surprised, and honestly disappointed, that the author seems to still play nice, instead of releasing the whitepaper. I'm the author. I've worked with different parts of NCMEC for years. (I built the initial FotoForensics service in a few days. Before I wrote the first line of code, I was in phone calls with NCMEC about my reporting requirements.) Over time, this relationship grew. Some years, I was in face-to-f…

> About this time, someone usually mocks "it's always about the kids, think about the kids." To those critics: They have not seen the scope of this problem or the long term impact.

The problem is people use this perfectly legitimate problem to justify anything. They think it's okay to surveil the entire world because children are suffering. There are no limits they won't exceed, no lines they won't cross in the name of protecting children. If you take issue, you're a "screeching minority" that's in their way and should be silenced.

It's extremely tiresome seeing "children, terrorists, drug dealers" mentioned every single time the government wants to erode some fundamental human right. They are the bogeymen of the 21st century. Children in particular are the perfect political weapon to let you get away with anything. Anyone questions you, just destroy their reputation by calling them a pedophile.

Re: One Bad Apple

#338

Post by zepto »

lazide wrote: post #331
zepto wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or other files will be scanned since now Ok, so not other files at all then. Just photos of documents. > And the details around matching (and groups, etc) are trivial to change in a later update. Ok, so this mechanism can’t do more than us claimed, but they could add a new mechanism later?

As I said, incredibly naive.

You said it, but then you failed to back it up with anything other than your fears.

Re: One Bad Apple

#339

Post by turbinerneiter »

slg wrote: post #188
kbenson wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past these people would have been developing the pictures themselves, and handing them between each other either personally or in some hidden manner using public systems. Not only has communication become easier, so has surveillance. The only difference now is that it's easier for people not to be aware when their very personal privacy is invaded, and that it can be done to the whole populace at once.

>Not only has communication become easier, so has surveillance. It is a devil's advocate response, but can you explain why this is a bad thing? If communication is scaling and becoming easier, why shouldn't surveillance?

1. We judge these programs under the wrong assumption that it is run by the good guys. Any system that depends on the goodness of the people running it is dangerous, because it can be taken over by the bad guys.

2. I am a law abiding, innocent citizen. Why should I have to face the same compromised privacy as a criminal? It used to be that only people under suspicion are surveilled and that a judge had to grant this based on preliminary evidence. Now everyone is surveilled. How long until people who are sidestepping surveillance (i.e. using Open Source systems that don't implement this stuff), fall under suspicion just because they are not surveilled? How long until it's "guilty until proven otherwise"?

In my opinion it is absolutely fair and necessary to scan images that are uploaded to the cloud in a way that makes them shareable. But never the stuff I have on my device. And the scanning system has to be transparent.

Re: One Bad Apple

#340

Post by edmundsauto »

RealityVoid wrote: post #327
edmundsauto wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you quite certain about your 1-1000 number? It’s really easy to mistake our experience for something generalizable.

It's hard to say without data, but the number is so astonishingly high that, really, the first reaction is to call it into question. It also seems to be the kind of thing that is hard to measure.

I dunno, seems reasonable to me. Crimes of this nature are underreported, so I tend to assume I’m only aware of a very small percentage of these situations. I’m not saying you’re wrong - just that I had the reaction that it seemed within the general ballpark. For example, most of the apparently normal women I have known well have shared stories of abuse and trauma.

What makes you say it’s hard to measure? The definitions are pretty clear cut.

Post reply on HN